The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers Questions
The information for Question 2 actually appears earlier in this excerpt than the info for Question 1, but Question 1 is a little easier, and it may help you to do it first. (But you should still start reading the excerpt from the beginning.)
1. I count three main reasons (claims) that Kennedy gives on page 50 to explain the result of the war. Complete the chart about them. I’ve done one to get you started.
What is Kennedy’s claim?
The North’s greater population was a key factor in its victory
The fact that the North had a more stable and developed manufacturing sector led to their victory in the civil war.
The South’s ruined economy did not allow them to pay for the war to keep up with the …show more content…
He leaves the connection between population advantage and Northern victory mostly implicit.
Kennedy does not explain how a larger railway system aids the North in its victory over the confederacy. He does connect manufacturing with ships and weapons explicitly.
He does make convincing arguments for his claims but there is no real evidence. He does not use any data or 3rd party sources. The arguments he states are know by many people but to the one person who is reading this and knows nothing about the civil war, would have to cross reference Kennedy’s arguments with a 3rd party source to see if they are true.
2. On the left side of page 49, Kennedy makes a claim about the probability of war between the U.S. and Great Britain.
Claim:
War between the U.S. and Great Britain is unlikely.
Evidence:
The two were connected due to their imports and exports.
The two were connected due to their close trade relations. A strategically secure United States does not have to spend a lot of money on their defenses.
Look at sub-section 5 of your AM #10 sheet. Kennedy doesn’t make explicit the connection between his evidence and this claim. Using AM #1, how would you explicitly connect his evidence with his …show more content…
On page 50, Kennedy says he’s “assuming that willpower would remain equal on each side.” Look back at James McPherson’s argument about “contingency” on page 55 of your reading packet. What would McPherson say about Kennedy’s assumption, and why?
McPherson would say that Kennedy is false to state that willpower would remain equal on each side. McPherson believes in contingencies and the different morales on both sides could be a contingency for winning the war. McPherson says that defeat causes demoralization and loss of the will to fight. He goes to state that the will to fight is based on the wins and loses of battles which means that their is a contingencies over every campaign, battle, election, and decision throughout the war. He would argue that the whole war was riddled with contingency because of the will power of each side.
4. Kennedy does admit that two contingent factors or events might have made the war go differently. What are they?
He says that the border states like Maryland and Kentucky coming to the South would help them. They would have more manufacturing than the rest of the South. Britain coming in and helping them would have turned the tide of the war. Britain would have had a better army and economy than the South to face the
The information for Question 2 actually appears earlier in this excerpt than the info for Question 1, but Question 1 is a little easier, and it may help you to do it first. (But you should still start reading the excerpt from the beginning.)
1. I count three main reasons (claims) that Kennedy gives on page 50 to explain the result of the war. Complete the chart about them. I’ve done one to get you started.
What is Kennedy’s claim?
The North’s greater population was a key factor in its victory
The fact that the North had a more stable and developed manufacturing sector led to their victory in the civil war.
The South’s ruined economy did not allow them to pay for the war to keep up with the …show more content…
He leaves the connection between population advantage and Northern victory mostly implicit.
Kennedy does not explain how a larger railway system aids the North in its victory over the confederacy. He does connect manufacturing with ships and weapons explicitly.
He does make convincing arguments for his claims but there is no real evidence. He does not use any data or 3rd party sources. The arguments he states are know by many people but to the one person who is reading this and knows nothing about the civil war, would have to cross reference Kennedy’s arguments with a 3rd party source to see if they are true.
2. On the left side of page 49, Kennedy makes a claim about the probability of war between the U.S. and Great Britain.
Claim:
War between the U.S. and Great Britain is unlikely.
Evidence:
The two were connected due to their imports and exports.
The two were connected due to their close trade relations. A strategically secure United States does not have to spend a lot of money on their defenses.
Look at sub-section 5 of your AM #10 sheet. Kennedy doesn’t make explicit the connection between his evidence and this claim. Using AM #1, how would you explicitly connect his evidence with his …show more content…
On page 50, Kennedy says he’s “assuming that willpower would remain equal on each side.” Look back at James McPherson’s argument about “contingency” on page 55 of your reading packet. What would McPherson say about Kennedy’s assumption, and why?
McPherson would say that Kennedy is false to state that willpower would remain equal on each side. McPherson believes in contingencies and the different morales on both sides could be a contingency for winning the war. McPherson says that defeat causes demoralization and loss of the will to fight. He goes to state that the will to fight is based on the wins and loses of battles which means that their is a contingencies over every campaign, battle, election, and decision throughout the war. He would argue that the whole war was riddled with contingency because of the will power of each side.
4. Kennedy does admit that two contingent factors or events might have made the war go differently. What are they?
He says that the border states like Maryland and Kentucky coming to the South would help them. They would have more manufacturing than the rest of the South. Britain coming in and helping them would have turned the tide of the war. Britain would have had a better army and economy than the South to face the